Dealing with Anti Hunting Comments
I thought a bit about where and how to deal with this topic, and decided to just put it right here on the “front page”, so to speak.
Since I’ve been blogging here for, what is it… almost a year now, I’ve really only received a very few anti-hunting or anti-gun comments. Unfortunately, almost every one of them has been pretty much the intellectual equivalent of pine wood… dense but soft.
I’d expect at least a little creativity in the approach or word choice, but they’ve all fallen directly into the trap of banality and cliche. “Hunters are murderers.” is one that is generally accompanied by, “I’d like to hunt and kill you (hunters), and let’s see how you like it!”
Fortunately, all comments to this blog must be approved prior to going live, so I’ve been able to spare the readers here from having to read the vitriol. Unfortunately, someone found the loophole, and used my polling tool to add a puerile jab as a poll response. I deleted their addition, and have since disabled the option for users to add their own choices to the poll. That’s kind of sad, because I hate polls that force me to limit my choices, and I really enjoyed reading some of the additions.
If someone who is against hunting or guns would like to post up an argument against our sport on this blog, then I may consider letting it stand… IF that argument is not laden with cheap shots and invective, and instead suggests that the challenger is willing to face a response. I would actually welcome a well thought-out, literate challenge to the status quo, whether it be against hunting or hunting methods… or for that matter, counter to anything that I represent here.
But I will not abide name calling, nor will I provide a platform for the facile, “don’t kill animals because they’re too cute,” mentality. Sorry, but it’s my blog. I don’t have patience for that, and I won’t subject my other readers to it.
Good post. I’ve never gotten an anti-hunting comment but am always on the lookout.
November 4th, 2007 at 10:54 am
I’ve been hoping for a few anti hunting comments on my blog, but I’ve not had any.
The most common negative response I’ve had has been to ask me if I feel guilty. I always respond the same way “yes I do feel guilty every time I buy intensively farmed meat from the supermarkets don’t you?”
The last person really made me laugh, he answered ‘no my mum does all my cooking’.
He was 30 years old!!!
It’s easy to dismiss people we disagree with as being childish, but how else can we describe the ‘bambification’ of wildlife and the food chain?
November 4th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Damn, everyone gets one but me!
November 4th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
I haven’t seen any on my blog either.
I do always find it ironic that people who are anti-hunting are concerned about killing animals, but many of them would advocate hunting and killing a human being (i.e. a hunter). Apparently they don’t see the disconnect. Rather odd, in my opinion.
November 5th, 2007 at 6:53 am
I like your take, and I think that we, as hunters, should heed your advice from our end as well. We need to be respectful and intellectual in our defense of hunting.
November 5th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Bryan, you’re absolutely dead on. We represent ourselves and our sport best by taking the high road, no matter how easy it would be to reduce the argument to silly bashing.
For the vast majority of anti-hunters, as well as for many hunters, the pro and con arguments always boil down to an emotional choice… to kill or not to kill. That’s not something that can be debated, since emotion doesn’t require any kind of logical or quantifiable defense.
Rex, hang in there… one day, someone is gonna take you to task for killing Thunderhoof.
November 12th, 2007 at 8:24 am
I don’t think any right-minded person disagrees with hunting for food, but I can understand how trophy hunting would be a turn-off to many people not necessarily of the “bambi” mentality. There are a lot of beautiful creatures in the world (even the ugly ones!), and to kill for the sake of displaying the conquest’s head in one’s den seems like an affront to the Creator. I’m about to go on a hog hunt with longbow myself, so I’m not anti-hunting by any means. But in watching videos of safaris recently, with the hunter merely sitting in a blind by some bait, and plugging animals like sitting ducks at distances of less than 20 yards, it just didn’t seem like ’sport’ to me, and left with with a bad taste.
On a side note: I keep thinking about that movie Predator… ‘the demon who makes a trophy of man’… it made me think about things from the prey’s perspective.
November 14th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Robert
very well put. i met a vegi the other day who, when told about my hunting, said ‘i wish more people who eat meat would hunt it’
I was pleasantly surprised by her attitude.
live and let live. unless you’re going to eat it. then its kill and grill!
November 14th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Robert, welcome to the Hog Blog, and thanks for your thoughtful response.
In large part, I agree with your perspective on “trophy” hunting, but at the same time, most of the trophy hunters I know personally utilize the entire animal. They will often hold out on killing an animal until they find the one that meets their personal standard, but when they kill it, they treat it with respect and utilize the meat as well as the trophy. Those who only take heads and skins while leaving the rest don’t really meet my personal definition of “ethical hunters”… but I don’t know any trophy hunters who do that.
There’s a fine line that needs to be monitored when we start to get too critical of other hunters’ methods or motivations, though. Because something doesn’t meet our personal standard doesn’t necessarily make it an “evil”. People hunt for a lot of different reasons, and they define success by many different criteria. We get into a pretty mucky area when we start trying to separate “right ways” vs “wrong ways” by virtue of our personal ethics.
It is up to us, hunters, to police our own ranks. If there’s a practice that we feel is damaging, it’s right to speak up about it. But first consider where the complaint is coming from… is it personal distaste with a legal practice (baiting, inline muzzleloaders, crossbows, etc.), or is it truly a practice that threatens the future of our sport?
November 14th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Well, again, I’m speaking only from personal opinion as to what I think is good karma… let all hunters make those decisions for themselves as to how they use or display their harvest.
I myself wouldn’t be above displaying the snarly visage of a beast that proved a threat to myself or others, if I took him in defense of life and property.
(Any bacon I got out the effort notwithstanding!)
November 14th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Well, I have to say… the bacon IS the best part… OK, actually, I prefer the tenderloins. Never had much success getting bacon from wild hogs.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Hello,
I thought I would comment on your page because you seem to be a mature person and I dont feel like I will get called down for what I am about to say.
I personally am against hunting, but before everyone gasps here me out. I understand many of the pros for hunting and I also realize that chewing on a steak from the supermarket still involves an animal dying. Which is why Im not 100% against hunting and why Im not 100% against all hunters.
My problem lies not so much in the killing of the animal for food but for the pleasure it brings to SOME hunters. I find that when any individual enjoys a creature dying that it goes against my morals. I dont feel hunters should try to be hunted as that is being a hypocrit, nor do I agree with people who are saying that its better to eat meat from a slaughterhouse, but I dont think getting pleasure from any creatures pain is healthy.
Just the same as I wouldnt like to see humans kill each for fun or for the enjoyment of the hunt.
I truly hope I dont offend anyone I would just like to shed some light as to how I personally oppose some hunters.
Shannon.
April 19th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Hi Shannon,
Wow, I thought this thread had gone to bed for good, but your comments are welcome.
Two things: First, don’t worry about offending someone for feeling the way you do. You don’t have to justify your feelings to anyone except yourself… ever… as long as you live up to the same standard to which you hold others. It’s all about what you do about those feelings, how you express them, and whether you try to force your opinion on others. From what I see here, you’re not forcing anything on anyone. You’re just sharing your perspective.
Secondly, I don’t think you’ll find a single hunter who honestly enjoys seeing anything in pain. Ethical hunters always strive for a quick, humane kill, but we are aware that sometimes it doesn’t happen that way. We are quick to end the suffering when it does happen.
And while we are engaged, indubitably, in a blood sport, I don’t think “joy” is an emotion any of us feels from seeing the death of any living thing. Sure, we feel joy about being in the field hunting, and we’re generally happy about what comes after that death…the prospect of good meat, and possibly of skins or trophies as well. But the kill itself, the bloody reality of death… it’s a necessary part of reducing an animal to meat.
But actually taking away a life is one of the most difficult emotions to describe. It’s also the big dividing line between hunters and non-hunters, and one that I have never heard explained in a way that makes non-hunters understand what it means or what it feels like.
I guess, if anything, hunting and killing an animal might be compared to childbirth (bear with me here, I know I’m really reaching).
Making the baby is generally a lot of fun, and a child is a purely divine gift. But there is a period of pain, pure agony for some women, that is the price for everything else… but somehow, despite that agony, women keep paying that price. Those moments (or hours) of agony, doubt, and fear seem to be washed away by nature’s little amnesiac so that all that remains is the wonder and joy of childbirth. No one will ever be able to explain to me why women go through that once, much less several times. It’s a mystery of human nature and psychology.
I dunno…like I said, it’s a stretch.
Other than that, there’s nothing I can offer to change your personal perspective on killing things, except to guarantee you that there’s no sadistic or psychotic pleasure in the kill itself. It’s simply not a part of our human nature. Those who do find joy in pain and death are anomalies in our species, and seldom do they confine their pleasures to legal game or hunting seasons and limits.
April 19th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Hi Shannon,
I absolutely love hunting! I began hunting with my father and grandfather when I was nine years old. My first gun was an old single shot Win. 20 GA. I sure do miss it.
I am pleasantly suprised with the lack of moronic, name calling, lame, illogical arguement, that your stated opposition holds. Bravo!
As I mentioned I can’t get enough of hunting. The only bittersweet aspect of the whole wonderful experience, is the killing part.
The only reasons that I can come up with to justify to myself that it’s o.k. to take an animals life are these:
1. I am omnivorous. I eat meat, and unfortunately meat is found mostly on other living creatures.
2. 98% of all monies that are allocated to Fish and Game to preserve habitat and keep wild animals strong and healthy comes from those of us who hunt. It’s unreal how often hunters are accused of being evil by people who, (other than explaining to hunters how evil they are) do or contribute NOTHING to the cause of keeping wildlife populations healthy and strong.
3. If God didn’t want us to eat animals, then why did He make them out of meat? (Trying to add a little levity here)
Look, mankind has always been and will always be hunter gatherers. Those of the population who don’t hunt, gather. I am 41years old and have NEVER met another hunter who was a sadistic murderer of inocent animals. I am sure that there must be crazy hunters out there. Howerver, I would also wager that there are just as many crazy vegans, or whatever group that you want to push to the front of the line.
The movie Bambi was a CARTOON. It wasn’t based on real life.
Most hunters respect the land that they hunt on, as well as the game that they legaly hunt. In MY experience, they are an alright bunch of guys and gals that I would be happy to share a fire with at any time.
Thanks for taking the time. George Van Aken
April 26th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Very respectful conversation you have going here, and for that reason I’m comfortable expressing my opinion. I am going to pose a question, and if it’s offensive, know that I didn’t intend it to be so. I am a vegetarian. I stopped eating meat at 22. I’m 29 now. I read things about the horrors of factory farming, and the psychological stress that the animals endure prior to being slaughtered. Many studies state that the animals are aware that they are in danger and can see and hear other animals being killed long before it is their “turn”. The conditions some animals are kept in, such as gestation crates, are absolutely disgusting to me.
Would you say that most hunters are also against factory farms that practice inhumane methods and keep animals in unnatural and uncomfortable settings?
My vile comments and insults are reserved mostly for the perpetuators of that system of torture. Although I admit, I do have a reserve of equally vile comments and insults for people who support or participate in dog-fighting, bear baiting, etc. I actually didn’t know bear baiting existed until I came across an article on the net yesterday and decided to do some research. I have seen cruelty, but never in my life have I seen anything so utterly nauseating as that. (for more info…http://www.wspa-usa.org/pages/391_bear_baiting.cfm)
A comment I read on a video I watched (briefly…as it sickened me to the core) challenged the notion that bear baiting can be called a sport, because the bear is defenseless. Its teeth are removed, it is weakened, and it is tethered through the nose. It is malnourished. It is up against several very strong dogs at a time (who are also hurt and often crushed).
Obviously, as you were stretching when comparing hunting to childbirth, I too am reaching when comparing legal hunting to bear baiting. Still, I have to pose the question, and not as an instigative remark, but as a genuine question.
Should legal hunting (I will not address illegal hunting or poaching, since you are obviously not involved in that.) be called a sport, or would hobby be a better word?
Most definitions of the word sport that I’ve read go something like this (copy and pasted): Sport is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Sports commonly refer to activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor are the sole or primary determiner of the outcome (winning or losing), but the term is also used to include activities such as mind sports (a common name for some card games and board games with little to no element of chance) and motor sports where mental acuity or equipment quality are major factors. Sport is commonly defined as an organized, competitive and skillful physical activity requiring commitment and fair play. Sports differ from games based on levels of organization and profit (not always monetary). Accurate records are kept and updated, while failures and accomplishments are widely announced in sport news.
Now, according to this definition, and others like it, isn’t fair play an essential ingredient? I just don’t think it’s fair play when humans have equipment to lure, confuse, trick, trap, and kill animals…yet the animals don’t have the same.
I know an argument can be made that some animals, especially predatory animals, have instincts that can, indeed, “trap, lure, and kill” humans. However, given the level of technology today, and the high powered scopes that allow humans to sit a good distance away and shoot, I don’t think that anyone would be in a position to pose a valid argument stating that the hunted animals are just as capable of killing the hunters.
Statistics show that hunters sometimes die during the hunt, more so as a result of an inexperienced or naive hunter yielding a weapon nearby than as a result of a vicious animal attack. However, statistics show very obviously that there is a much higher ratio of animals who die during hunting vs. the number of hunters who die.
I liken it to a baseball game where one team has wooden bats to swing when it’s their turn at the plate, while the other team is given nothing but their arms. I think the Vegas lines would say that the team with the bats is going to win. (Ok, that was sarcastic, but I promise no more sarcasm.)
That being said, is hunting a fair sport? Or is it more of a hobby?
When hunters call legal hunting a sport, do they mean that the competition is hunter vs. hunter or hunter vs. his/her own previous record? Or is the intended “competition” to be thought of as hunter vs. prey?
If it’s hunter vs. prey, then, for all the reasons detailed above, I feel that it should be called a hobby instead of a sport, since there doesn’t seem to be a strategist out there equipping the animals with decoys and such to lure the hunter to a point where he is unlikely to escape and then use a weapon to kill him.
It may seem that I’m rambling excessively over a matter of semantics, but being an English teacher, I’ll admit that I sometimes get caught up in terms. I wonder if hunting would be more accepted if it were called a hobby. (Hobby is commonly defined as a spare time recreational pursuit.)
If the sport is based on competition between hunters, or between a hunter and his own previous record, then I suppose the animals are just seen as a piece of sport equipment. Correct me if you feel I’m wrong, or if you feel I’m missing something altogether. I just don’t think that it is fair to use a living, sentient thing as a pawn in a game or sport without that living, sentient thing’s knowledge or consent.
All of that being said, would I personally be happier if hunters went “mano e mano” with the animals and had a physical battle to the death? No. Obviously not. I don’t want to see a human being killed. I also don’t want to see an animal killed slowly and painfully.
I’m not going to start in with the (insane) argument some anti-hunting camps throw around that rants, “If hunters are so tough, then why don’t they go hand to claw with the animal?” That’s an unintelligent rally cry, if you ask me. First of all, it insinuates that all hunters are doing what they do because they “think they’re so tough”, and I think that is an unfair generalization based on…well…not based on much. Secondly, hunting without weaponry wouldn’t result in any less suffering. Yes, it would likely result in less actual animal death during hunting, but the animals who were killed in “hand to claw” combat would obviously be killed in a terrifying and painful way. I’m not suggesting that hunters lose the guns.
My question is more about the use of the word “sport”.
For the record, yes, I am opposed to hunting. Hunting is not something that I enjoy watching, participating in, or hearing stories about. However, it’s hunting that has nothing to do with the food chain that I really have a problem with. Yet, I’m also opposed to eating meat. I know that most people are NOT vegetarians, and as of yet (who knows what the future holds) I haven’t converted or tried converting anyone to vegetarianism. Nobody in my family is a vegetarian. My boyfriend of two years enjoys meat, and often. I prefer hunting for meat to the sickness, filth, and torture perpetuated by factory farms.
I’ve learned to choose my battles. I’ve learned that as an animal lover, I will direct my activism against dog fighting and breed specific laws that prohibit responsible people like me from owning American Pitbull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Rottweilers, and other large, muscular dogs. (As you may have guessed, I share my home with a wonderful, beautiful Pitbull.)
I am not the enemy, and I’m glad your open forum acknowledges that. You are not the enemy, and I hope that my detailed, researched, and (almost) sarcasm free comment attests to that.
I look forward to your response regarding the idea of hunting as a sport.
Thank you for the open forum.
January 27th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Hi Amanda, and welcome to the HogBlog.
You’ve dropped a box full of ideas and thoughts here, but I’ll have a go at it… trying not to be too redundant with other posts and threads I’ve put up on these topics.
First of all, no, I don’t think “most” hunters honestly have strong aversions to factory farming… like most modern people in our society, hunters are pretty well insulated and unaware/unconcerned about how the food gets from the farm to the store shelves. However, I do think that most hunters are more aware and incensed by the incidents of pure cruelty and abuse that have been documented in some factory farm situations, and there are many hunters who prefer to hunt for their meat rather than rely on the factory farms to provide it.
Hunters are as human and humane as pretty much anyone else, and we’re affected by the same emotions toward injustice, pain, and suffering. We may have a different perspective when it comes to the subject of killing something so that we can at, but that doesn’t change our essential humanity.
I don’t want to get into a whole thing about factory farming, but remember that industry impacts a lot more than just farm animals. Factory farming for vegetables, grains, and fruit is another potentially devastating practice, and has a deadly effect on wildlife too. Hunters are attuned to this as well, as they see corporate farms taking over the habitat and impacting natural diversity.
As far as calling it a sport… You can’t cherry-pick your definitions, and in most dictionaries you’ll find that “sport” has more than one definition. Those you’ve selected are not exclusive of the others.
The definition of “sport” as a competition and the ideal of “fair play” are really non-issues when it comes to hunting. “Sport Hunting” was so dubbed because it was a diversion, something done for enjoyment rather than out of necessity. It came about out of a time when people still hunted for subsistence and for the market, so the differentiation was more important then than now.
That said, if you want to call it a hobby, you’re welcome to do so. Some folks certainly list hunting as one of their hobbies. But it’s generally referred to as a sport, and changing the name isn’t really changing anything now, is it?
As far as “fairness,” I really have to refer you to another of my posts: http://californiahuntingtoday.com/hogblog/2008/11/17/food-for-thought-my-views-on-fair-chase/
While I’d prefer that you read that thread for details, in short my opinion is that “fair” is a human construct and has no place in nature. We’re the only animals that really seem to care about a level playing field. As hunters, we’re playing in Nature’s arena, and as such, we need to play by Nature’s rules. Those rules say that the victor is always going to be the one with the best tools and the “unfair” advantage… whether that means claws and fangs, speed, or stealth.
I don’t know that I’ve given your reply proper time and consideration, but I think you’ll find most of your questions answered in this thread, or in the Fair Chase post I linked to above.
January 27th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
I read your post on fair chase, and it’s very thought-provoking. However, I think that it’s dismissive to call ourselves animals when it’s convenient in debate. Yes, we are the only animals who seem to really care about a level playing field. That’s because we are rational beings. The animals being hunted are far less rational.
Humans should see it as their responsibility to protect the earth and its resources. You mentioned in your fair play blog that hunters play a major part in population control, which actually reduces suffering. So in that case we’re seeing nature as something we can control because of our advanced intelligence and rationality. We’re shaping nature, we’re deciding perimeters that animal populations and migrations must adhere to, and if not, they’re killed for their own good. So in that matter, we’re rational and logical enough to declare ourselves nature’s protector; an overseer rather than just another animal.
Yet on the other hand, there is the depiction of human beings as just another animal in the food chain. One that happens to have all of the equipment necessary, though not provided by nature, to be the victor. The other animals have to make do with what they’ve been given through evolutionary traits. We have science and electronics on our side.
Humans are not just another animal or species. If we’re just another species, then why are we the only species categorized under “human”, while there are thousands categorized under “animal”? We can jump right into that animal category when necessary, but back into the protected and more respected human category whenever we choose.
Finally, if a hunter (be he/she a bubba or a fair game proponent) must kill something for food, I understand (not necessarily agree or disagree…but certainly understand the logic) why you say that fair game is a moot point. Then that hunter is a member of a food chain and is doing what he or she needs to do to eat what he or she wants. (I’m not going to say “to survive”, because, well…I haven’t died just yet.) Still, there are plenty of hunters who kill things that they don’t want to eat. I don’t think it’s natural, in the animal world, to hunt and kill something only to use its head, carcass, or fur for flair in your home. Because there are hunters who do so, it unfortunately affects hunters who do not. If all hunters were killing for food, because they wanted to feel connected to nature and actively participate in the food chain rather than take advantage of factory farms, well…then I think it would be much easier to gain public approval. However, it’s hard to look at someone smiling and holding a high powered rifle in one hand and a dead animal that he/she does not want to eat in the other and say, “Man, that guy is really one with nature.”
And while I do appreciate your response, I don’t think that it was given proper time and consideration, in your words. I think that referring to it as a sport vs. hobby vs. survival strategy (for those who refuse to rely solely on factory farms) makes quite a bit of difference in terms of how your chosen pastime is viewed by the public. Unless you don’t care about how it’s viewed, but from your blog that’s not the impression I get. You’re obviously a fan of words, as you use them well to make your point and to educate people about something important to you. I’m a fan of words, too, and I think that sometimes the titles and tags we give things make all the difference in how they’re perceived and in how well they’re received.
I said finally, and I’m not quite through yet. I just remembered something I wanted to bring up. The definition of fair game that many hunters agree with includes declining to hunt animals who are trapped. However, what does “trap” really mean? Again, you may feel I’m getting caught up in meanings, and maybe I am. I think it’s important that intended meanings aren’t lost in shuffles or molded to convenience one point of view vs. another. An animal can be trapped in many ways. The picture that comes to mind when many people hear “trapped animal” is animals with their legs in clamps. However, trapped can also mean lured into a life threatening situation from which there is no realistic escape.
After reading several of your entries, I have more of a respect for hunter-eaters who do engage in fair play as generally outlined by the excerpts in your blog on the topic.
I meant hunter-eaters as hunters who do so to eat, not as in respect for people who eat hunters. That’d be twisted.
As for opinion, nobody has the right to judge and everybody has the right to judge, isn’t that truth! My opinion is that I personally have no desire to argue with those who hunt humanely (meaning that the animal does not suffer before it dies) and do so for food. However, I’m disturbed by hunters who do so for “sport”. And that’s how much of a difference a few little titles and words mean to me.
As I wouldn’t exactly consider myself the uneducated public, I hope that you and your loyal readers take my concerns seriously, as I’m not here for confrontation…I’m here for education. Both mine and yours. I’ve allowed you to educate me about hunting as practiced by an intelligent, ethical, educated person. I hope you’ll take something from these comments and allow me to educate you about the way educated, ethical, intelligent anti-hunters think.
I think public image is important to all controversial issues, one of which is certainly hunting.
Just as not all hunters are “bubbas”, not all “antis” are PETA lunatics. (Sorry, PETA…but, you’ve let some real loose cannons into your camp, so I packed my bags and left.)
And I’m still up in the air. I wouldn’t call me an anti. Not in all respects, anyway. Thought provoking stuff. We don’t see eye to eye, but that doesn’t mean we can’t learn from each other.
Perhaps I might realize that hunting can be necessary and you might think about the idea that fair and unfair, while hard to define, do exist and do impact how the community at large judges things.
Thanks for the time and consideration. Don’t know that there’s much more to say to avoid redundancy, but I appreciate you responding so quickly initially, and I’ll bookmark the site.
Please direct anyone who thinks that all animal rights people are uneducated militants to my comments, and I’ll direct anyone who thinks all hunters are blood covered rednecks to your site.
Amanda
(For any animal rights person, hunter, or just anyone reading this thread who is interested in getting involved in an animal issue that really needs our time and attention, please visit http://www.pbrc.net and learn more about breed specific legislation and bans on certain breeds of dogs.)
January 27th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Sorry if you didn’t think the last post provided the appropriate time and consideration. I don’t mean to provide short shrift to your questions, but I do think most of them are addressed across this blog… I’ve written pretty extensively on the topic, and many of the readers have added a ton of value as well. Repetition gets so redundant… (insert grin here). Seriously though, we probably won’t agree on all of my positions, but I think they’re pretty well documented here.
I think we may be seeing a bit of a disconnect in my position regarding humans as “just animals”, but the important thing to remember is that I see ANIMALS as just animals… in other words, they do not recognize “fairness” or “unfair advantage”. It doesn’t matter to them if we kill them in a trap, shoot them from 200 yards away, or fight them with our bare hands. Those things only matter to us. To them, we’re just another predator.
As a note, by the way, “human” is not a biological categorization… and is certainly not scientifically separated from the other animals. We absolutely are “just animals”, and it is the utmost conceit to consider ourselves separate (I’ve written about this before too).
I certainly do recognize that as a species we are “rational” and self-aware, and that in order for our society to function we can’t ignore these traits. Part of that recognition is the need to function under “socially acceptable” guidelines… hence the origins of the Fair Chase ideal, as well as the ideals of conservationism and the concept of responsibility to mitigate our impact on the habitat. It is for these reasons that I am a big proponent of hunting practices that are legal, sustainable, and humane. I totally understand the public relations aspect.
Moving along, though, I think there’s a misperception about the “need” for sport hunting. The honest truth is that we don’t “have” to hunt for our food. Subsistence hunting is almost completely gone in the industrial nations with a few exceptional pockets. It absolutely IS a sport, or a hobby… it IS recreation. Sure, some of us take it a lot more seriously than that, but not a one of us would starve if we never hunted again. (The impacts on the wildlife and habitat would be a major issue if we ended sport hunting, but let’s just focus on the human aspect right now.)
So I totally agree that we shouldn’t mold meanings to suit us at the moment, and when I refer to hunting as a sport, I’m being as honest and direct as I can with the language. As I said in the Fair Chase post and a couple of other places, hiding the facts of what we do under euphemisms is nothing short of dishonesty. It’s a lie, and as with all lies, we’ll eventually get caught out in it. With that comes a loss of credibility, which is the worst kind of public relations you can get. Let’s just call it what it is.
Fortunately, there are many benefits to our sport… primarily the money we provide for habitat and wildlife management… that help to justify what we do. That’s another whole line of discussion that’s been held here before, though. It’s relevant, but not worth repeating.
I’m glad to see that that you may have a different outlook on hunters, or at least on those who eat what they kill (which really is the vast majority of hunters), and I can assure you that I know and am good friends with many people who would prefer that I never kill another animal for any reason. I know very well that all anti-hunters aren’t “loonies” or whatever… they are very intelligent and thoughtful people who simply believe differently than I do about my recreational choices.
January 27th, 2009 at 5:03 pm